The enforcement officer’s order awarding real property to the purchaser

The reasons for Supreme Court of Cassation Interpretative Decision No. 5 of 18.05.2017 in case No. 5/2015 address a building on land sold in enforcement proceedings. Suppose the building is not identified in the award order, no attachment was imposed on it, the enforcement officer neither inventoried nor valued it, and it was not itself put up for public sale. If the building is a separate object of ownership, Article 92 of the Property Act cannot be relied on to conclude that the award order transferred title to the building as well. If it is not a separate object of ownership, Article 92 applies in the ordinary way.

The reasons for Interpretative Decision No. 5 of 18.05.2017 in case No. 5/2015 of the General Assembly of the Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation also explain that the enforcement officer’s award order is a unilateral act of public authority certifying that a particular property has been awarded to the purchaser. From the day the order becomes final (Article 496(2), first sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in State Gazette No. 49/2012), the purchaser acquires all the rights the debtor held in the property. The award therefore transfers rights in rem. Acquisition at a public sale is accordingly a distinct mode of acquisition within the meaning of Article 77 of the Property Act. Because the purchaser acquires the rights the debtor held (Article 496(2) of the Code), and third parties may protect their rights in the property sold by bringing a claim to title (Article 498(2), second sentence), acquisition at public sale is derivative.

This article is not a legal opinion or legal advice about any particular person or situation. For assistance with a specific case, consult a lawyer about judicial enforcement.